I will eat my slice of humble pie.

Though I will also point out that the AL changed the rule prior to the 1929 season, which I found out by checking your assertion.

Sorry I jumped on you, even us know-it-alls can still learn something!

Admitting you were mistaken, bro? Do you even internet?

LOL. Kinda hard to fight facts. For some of us anyway.

Don't know why I thought that rule changed around the turn of the century.

First of all, I wasn't saying that YOU doubting Cobb hitting 5 homers in two games was disparaging. The reason I put that in my post was as a pre-emptive strike against someone else posting and saying that Cobb's 5 homers probably included ones that were inside-the-park homers or had bounced over the fence and counted as homers, and that therefore his piece of this MLB record was tainted because they weren't all hit over the fence on a fly like they had to be after 1930 to count as a home run.

Cobb had hit 12 homers in a season only twice in his career, once in 1925, that included the 5 he hit over a two day period, and also in 1921. In 1921 however, 4 of those were inside-the-park homers. And back in 1909 when Cobb actually won the MLB Triple Crown, he did so hitting a total of 9 home runs, all of which were inside-the-park homers, not a single one over the fence. Supposedly all 12 of Cobb's homers in 1925 were the "over the fence" variety.

I figured I'd save myself time and not have to respond to posts from people who would just jump on and question Cobb's home runs without doing their own research first, but that doesn't appear to have worked. So, here are some articles/sources out there that include info on Cobb's home runs and also info about the story of him telling people he was going to purposely hit home runs back in 1925. Though one of these stories does mention Stump's book, it also names of a couple sportswriters who supposedly heard Cobb's comments about hitting home runs. And it is even more interesting that one of those two sportswriters eventually became a Director of the baseball HOF in Cooperstown (and is therefore someone whom you would think and hope is a little more respected and reliable source than Stump ever would be), and yet he, nor the other named sportswriter, apparently never disputed the Cobb story. So it isn't all just coming from Stump. Even after all that, I too still wonder and doubt if Cobb ever really said he was going to purposely hit home runs all of a sudden, and lean towards the myth side of that story myself. Just like the Ruth called home run shot story.

However, that doesn't change the indisputable fact that Cobb did hit the 5 homers, so I'm not sure what you meant when you said, "Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step." Are these ESPN and Baseball Almanac articles and stories that follow good enough for you, or do you still need more authoritative collaboration?


https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...hree-home-runs

https://www.vintagedetroit.com/ty-co...s-well-anyone/

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/pla...php?p=cobbty01

https://radicalbaseball.blogspot.com...ns-in-two.html

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...nside-the-park

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml



And this whole thing with Cobb and the home runs really goes back to an earlier poster talking about how singles were so less important than home runs. That is the reason I originally brought up the Cobb home run story to try and show another side to the argument. I thought it was kind of funny that someone would come out and actually say they cared so much less for singles than home runs. So here's Cobb, one of the greatest hitters in MLB history (if not arguably the greatest), who had by virtue of these two games in 1925, late in his career and at a somewhat advanced age for a ballplayer, shown that he apparently could hit homers if he wanted. And yet he still chose not to over his entire career, save for these two games. That earlier poster then went on in a later post to say - "They tell similar stories about Ichiro. Seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. In other words, the story is nonsense." This was in reference to the story of Cobb supposedly saying he was going to hit home runs all of a sudden, and that was this guy's way of trying to dispute that story. But he missed my point entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the story of whether or not Cobb ever really said he was going to do it to a couple sportswriters, the truth is that he actually did it!!!! And for a hitter as good and as consistent as Cobb, over a career as long as his, to suddenly have a couple games like that out of nowhere means that he must have decided to go for the fences in those two games, whether he said he was going to beforehand to someone else or not. That was no dumb luck fluke, not for someone with Cobb's batting eye and hitting ability. So it had to be intentional on his part. And if it was intentional, my whole point was how ironic is it that this earlier poster would say it is odd for a player to intentionally choose to be less successful (meaning they would consciously choose to hit singles rather than home runs I believe) and yet it appears that is exactly what Ty Cobb chose to do throughout his career. So it seems to me that this earlier poster, to put it bluntly, is saying that if Ty Cobb could have hit more homers if he wanted to, but didn't, that he was basically stupid! And that is why I also said I wish Cobb were still around today for this earlier poster to have said exactly what he posted about choosing to be more successful to Cobb's face, as I think Cobb would would have taken it just like I bluntly put it. I can easily envision Cobb's reaction being on a level like Brett's pine tar incident, or worse!!!

Forget the story, Cobb's apparent choice to hit singles instead of going for home runs I felt was the biggest counter to the earlier poster's argument that home runs were so much more important than singles. I'm not saying that homers aren't more important than singles (just not at the disparity that that earlier poster seemed to imply) or that Cobb could have ever come close to hitting home runs like Ruth did. Just saying that he's one huge proponent for singles still meaning something pretty important to the game, and to therefore not discount them so quickly, even when compared to home runs.

LOL

Scott,

No harm, no foul. I honestly wasn't really aware of that late date for the rule change until very recently either. By the way, I didn't realize there was a difference in the Al and NL, so thanks for correcting me as well. I saw the 1930 date somewhere and it didn't register with me that the two leagues could have different start dates for that particular rule.

As noted in a different post in this thread, I mentioned that rule and inside-the-park home runs so no one would need to call me out and say Cobb probably hadn't hit all 5 over the fence, and therefore argue they weren't true home runs. I found it interesting in some research that a very large number of Cobb's homers were inside-the-park (ITP) ones. When he hit 12 homers in 1921, apparently 4 of those were ITP. What I found astounding though was that in 1909 Cobb won the Triple Crown and led the majors with 9 home runs, all ITP homers. I never knew that till just a couple days ago. That is an insane statistic.

So given Cobb's history, I pointed out about the ITP and bouncing over the wall homers so that people couldn't argue that the 5 he hit in two games may have been a fluke. Think about it, if say 3 of the 5 had been ITP homers, and maybe another one had bounced over the fence, that would have left only one true homer hit out of the park. That would honestly make it look like pure dumb luck he had so many all at once then. But all 5 on a fly, over the fence, means they weren't a fluke and he must have done something those two days to hit that many homers all at once. They still talk today about how some players will consciously change their swings to elevate the ball and go for more homers, and how it can sometimes really screw up a hitter and their ability to get on base. They say they'll often strike out more or sometimes go into slumps where they seem to just pop or ground out all the time as well then. Thing is, that hitting part of the game hasn't really changed that much, but Cobb just suddenly doing what he did lets you know he must have consciously changed something with his swing those two games to hit all those home runs. There really is no other plausible explanation for it.

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

Rickey Henderson.

Just saw before I hit submit that Peter beat me to it. Add in walks for Rickey too.

Rickey (and Brock, and Wills) would use their raw speed and technique to turn singles into doubles (and maybe triples.) What Cobb did was more psychological - delayed steals, taking the unexpected extra base, sliding hard (clean, but hard,) and generally keeping the other team wound up tight, wondering what he would do next.

Henderson was a truly great player and play maker. His talent on the bases was speed and technique. You knew he was running. With Cobb, it was different - you never knew just what he would do next, or when, or how.

I dunno, pitchers talk a lot about how disruptive Henderson was on base. I think the idea of all that effort to hold him, and the full knowledge that he was going anyway had to make things considerably easier for whoever was batting after him.

I'm not diminishing Henderson one bit. Just saying, his style was different than Cobb's. For one thing, I'm sure Rickey had more raw speed.

Agree, along with some of the other posters regarding Henderson, Wills, and Brock. Just having someone on base changes the way most pitchers would then pitch to home run hitters, and also can effect the positioning of infielders as well.

As a baseball fan, I feel fortunate that my existence coincided with the career of Rickey Henderson. What an absolute monster he became once he reached first base. He was a human aneurism to whoever was on the mound pitching that day, just screwing their head up. As others have said, you knew NO MATTER WHAT he was going to bolt for second. Everyone in the world knew it, yet there was no way to stop the inevitable. Pitchers had no clue who was batting, because they were 100% focused on the vain attempt to keep Rickey from swiping second. And after he stole second? That monstrous lead he took left him seemingly only a few feet away from third base, and it gave pitchers the jitters as he dared them to try to pick him off. "Come on, I dare you." I imagine Cobb had that same effect on the fans and his opponents. This type of stuff can't be accounted for or captured in all the theoretical newfangled stats. You had to witness Rickey Henderson to really understand what an incredible game changer he was.

Not baseball related, but speaking of breaking rules, I just heard some good news. They decided to leave that rule-breaking Sha'carri Richardson off the US Olympic team for her marijuana use. She knew the rules, now she faces the consequences.

Yes, that's the part that's nonsense.

Either one though I was specifically referring to Cobb.

Ah, but clearly that's not true since Cobb was able to hit over .500 with multiple homers per game when he was "trying". So clearly he could have been more successful because there's absolutely no way that the story about him trying wasn't just made up nonsense, right?

Pretty much, yeah.

Clearly he's highly skilled so it's not just luck but... you're trying to say he possessed the inate ability to hit multiple homers per game his entire career and chose not to. Think about that for a second.

If he truly had the ability to hit home runs all that time and chose not to then, yeah, he was choosing to be less successful intentionally.

I'd happily do that. Because my line of thinking - that Cobb absolutely maximized what he could do on the field - is far more charitable than your view which is that he chose to not help his team or perform to the best of his ability by intentionally NOT trying to hit the homers he could hit so easily.

Chris/Tabe,

It must really be nice to pick and choose statements and respond in such a way to twist someone else's words to your advantage, or did you not understand anything I said? And where do you get off saying my view is not "charitable" to Cobb and that I am somehow implying that he chose not to do his best to help his team? I said you'd have a hard time finding anyone to agree with you (not me, YOU) that Cobb and Ichiro weren't already as successful as they could be. So I'm saying that Cobb was as successful as he could be, and you somehow twist it to then say I'm now accusing him of not doing his best to help his team? You're the one that was implying Cobb wasn't doing his best to help his team because he didn't try to hit home runs, which you feel are so much more important than singles. So you think you're smart and going to put me in a Catch-22 huh?

So if I say Cobb could hit home runs if he wanted to, yet chose to hit singles instead, that counters your argument that everyone should think singles are worth so little compared to home runs. But instead of acknowledging that Cobb's opinion and what he does in his career puts down your thinking about the importance of singles, you're just going to ignore and deflect that by accusing me of implying that Cobb wasn't doing the best for his team and for himself then. And you make yourself look like you win the argument by accusing me of putting Cobb down and simply ignoring the fact that he was more for hitting singles.

But if on the other hand Cobb can't really hit home runs whenever he wanted to, aside from an occasional one here and there, then all he ever was is just a singles hitter and I can't use him and his choice to be a singles hitter to counter your argument that singles are worth so little compared to home runs. So then you again make yourself look like you win the argument because I don't have Cobb to counter it, and you still have the satisfaction of accusing me of implying that Cobb didn't do his best for himself or for his team.

Do I have it about right?

Seems you don't have an open mind and will only believe what you want to and you're right and anyone not agreeing with you is wrong. I never said Cobb wasn't the best and most successful he could be. That was what you were implying, and then you tried to turn it around and put it back on me to make yourself look right. The fact that Cobb did what he did in those two games in 1925 clearly shows he could change his swing if he wanted to and try to go for the fences. You keep saying the story isn't true about him telling some sportswriters beforehand that he was going to hit for home runs, and I've said I don't really believe the story either, but the fact is the home runs are in the record books. Whether or not he actually ever told anyone about trying to hit homers, he did it. So when you say you don't believe the story and therefore you don't believe he could hit for homers when he wanted to, then how do you account for and explain the sudden surge in power for just these two games in his entire career? I don't want your deflections, changing the subject, ignoring my direct question, or so on. Give me some logical thoughts, ideas, evidence, explanations, whatever you can come up with to then explain how hit hits 5 homers like that without him suddenly doing something different, and no more of the, "I just don't believe it" nonsense.

It is fairly well known, even today, there is always a lot of debate about whether batters should go for home runs or average (ie: more singles). You hear commentators make mention of guys changing their swings to try and elevate the ball more when they hit it, often at the expense of getting more strike outs, or suddenly popping it up or hitting weak grounders a lot more as well. A lot of times their batting averages will suffer as a result and they can end up going into slumps. All of which is not good, and can take time for a hitter to readjust their swing in some cases to get it back on track so they aren't always just swinging for the fences. Cobb was a great hitter with an almost unparalleled eye and bat control, He was also about 6'1", which was sizable for the players back then, and had some ooomph to his swing. He came up during the dead ball era and had shown he was the best player he could be for years, using his style of batting control and swing to set the all-time major league batting records he did. And then suddenly when he's already into his 30's, MLB decides to change the ball and make it more lively. Now it is something he's not used to and after all his prior years of playing ball, it isn't always easy to adapt and change one's swing and how you do things, especially when you've had the kind of success that Cobb had had, and was still continuing to have as long as he stuck to how he had always done things. It has also been commented on how Cobb was completely unpredictable in his hitting and baserunning, and that was one of his most valuable weapons. And it was also well known how Cobb despised the new live ball era, and Ruth especially with all the attention he was getting from his home runs. All of these could be contributing factors as to why Cobb may have experimented and tried changing his swing, and then went back to what it was almost immediately.

So, regardless of whether or not Cobb did or didn't say something about trying to hit home runs to anyone on the 5th and 6th of May, 1925, it seems pretty obvious that for whatever reason(s) he changed something about the way he batted those two days and went looking for the fences. This could have been part of his trying to be unpredictable, or maybe just an experiment to see if he could do it, and maybe he did just get lucky over those two days trying something different. But Cobb was anything but stupid when it came to baseball and hitting. He probably also knew that if he tried to keep going for the fences that his swing could get messed up and would ultimately start affecting his hitting and average, or maybe it wasn't comfortable and natural for him and he couldn't keep doing it like that. Also, once pitchers figured out that he was possibly changing his swing to try and elevate the ball more, the word would eventually get around and chances are he would start getting pitched to differently. You see it today even how batters first coming into a league oftentimes have an advantage because the pitchers don't know how to pitch to them yet. Whatever the reasoning and thinking, Cobb alone knew the truth, and whatever he did he was going to do for the success of himself and his team. To even think I'd second guess Cobb and imply he didn't do the best he could is utterly ridiculous. You had been the one saying it was so much better to hit homers than singles, which would imply that Cobb should have just tried hitting homers all the time. Cobb was the great hitter he was and knew better than either of us what was best for him and his team. So don't go putting words in my mouth and twisting what I gad said.

And if your logic about homers is so true, then why doesn't every major league player today do nothing but go for the fences? And if you're going to say it is because they also need fielders and the big studs can't all play the field, there are a lot of smaller guys that pound it out as well. So if you like homers so much more than singles and find them so much more important to the game, why don't you write to MLB and ask them to expand the DH rule to the max. Have nine designated batters so you can pick the biggest studs you can find to hit 'em out of the park, and then have eight different guys to play in the field. Would make sense from the team standpoint also because they wouldn't have their batters risking injury as much by playing in the field. Oohh, maybe they should have designated runners for the batters as well so the stud hitters don't injure themselves on the base paths either. That would certainly all make for a more fun game to watch and attend, based on your concept of how important home runs are, right?

I'll leave you with this. Cobb knew the importance of his hitting and singles, and despite all the changes in baseball over the years, there is still a lot today's game has in common with the game from back then. And even in the midst of the recent power surge baseball has seen over the past several years, I still don't feel home runs are as important to the game as you make them out to be. And believe it or not, there is a lot of statistical data to prove what I'm saying is true, even today.

https://www.samford.edu/sports-analy...Hitting-Period

It's the gnats vs the bee sting theory. Bee sting hurts but gnats are consistently more distracting and annoying. :cool:

Because it seems as if rules don't matter anymore and everyone gets a free pass?

It's not just me - it's everyone. Home runs are FAAAAAARRRRRR more important than singles. That's absolutely indisputable.

If I can, sure :)

No, it doesn't counter my argument. What it does is provide another example of what Ichiro was criticized for throughout his career - prioritizing his average over everything else, to the detriment of his team. Ichiro after his first season (with some exceptions) basically stopped trying to hit the ball hard. This resulted in a guy hitting .320 with great speed somehow only getting 20 doubles a year.

If Cobb truly thought singles were anywhere close to the value of home runs, he was wrong. Period. I can acknowledge that opinion, if he held it, and say it's wrong - because it is.


Well, naturally I believe anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. Literally every single person on the planet feels that way. If you think something is correct and someone disagrees with you, you think they're wrong until they show you otherwise. If that weren't true, then you are admitting you believe something you know isn't true. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Also, I do have an open mind.

The same way I account for Mark Lemke slugging .708 in the 1991 World Series. Or Dave Stieb throwing back-to-back 26-out no-hitters. Sometimes guys have a couple good days.

It's simple - he made good contact and the ball went out. He needn't have changed anything for that to happen - he'd hit home runs before.

"Yep, that experiment was really successful. Don't wanna ever do that again!"


You're the one who said Cobb could hit homers when he wanted to and still chose not to.

If he was able to hit them at will, as the 1925 story claims, yes, he should have tried hitting them all the time - because home runs are BETTER.

Because not every guy can hit them?

I didn't say I like home runs more - now who's putting words in whose mouth? I said they're more important. I like variety - singles, doubles, stolen bases, home runs, the whole nine yards. But it's pretty obvious which of those is the best outcome for an AB.

FWIW, I hate the DH.

I mean, if you're going to do an analysis about home runs without controlling for a team's pitching quality, you're going to come up with a flawed analysis that somehow still comes up with the right result (more home runs = more wins), just as that article does.



Alright, just to be clear here:

1) Home runs are better than singles - by a LOT.
2) I don't believe Cobb said anything to any reporters that he could hit homers if he wanted because...
3) I don't believe Cobb could just hit homers whenever he wanted. He was a singles hitter.
4) Because of #3, I don't believe Cobb was intentionally performing worse by not trying to hit more home runs. I believe he recognized his own limitations and performed his best within those. It's nonsensical to believe he made a change in his swing or approach, HIT FIVE HOME RUNS IN TWO DAYS, and STILL decided that that approach wasn't the right way to do things.

Cobb played in the deadball era, but early in his career he was a home run hitter. In the A.L., here's where he finished on the HR leader board:

1907 second
1909 first
1910 second
1911 second
1912 third

So Cobb finished in the top 3 in home runs 5 of his first 6 full years in the majors. Relative to his time, and his peers, he was an outstanding home run hitter.

Misleading - in 1909, for example, all of his home runs were inside-the-park.

Remember that hitting a ball over the outfield fence and hitting a home run were not as well correlated back then. Huge outfields made inside-the-park home runs much more common back then. So yes, Cobb led the league in home runs in 1909 with nine, but all nine were inside-the-park homers. It had as much to do with his speed as his extra-base power.

EDIT: Tabe beat me to it! I'll add that of Cobb's 117 HRs, 46 were inside-the-park variety, which is now and probably forever the AL record. 71 over-the-wall homers in 11,440 ABs.

None of those sources you cite pre-date Stump, they are just other sources repeating Stump's story decades later. A blog post summarizing the incident from his book is not a new source. Your Baseball Almanac source even gives the page numbers in Stump's pile of manure they got it from. Later writers citing a fictional book does not mean they become a new source; it all comes back to the same original source. I am happy to be proven wrong if an earlier source for this story can be found. As it's source is a discredited book that is so far away from fact it belongs in the fiction section and nobody has come up with other evidence, no, I don't think it is reasonable to believe it at this time. Even if he did say it, it was still pretty clearly luck.

I said I'd check the game logs to see if he even hit 5 in two games, but as it's from a well-known liar, I didn't bother because that he hit 5 home runs in two games doesn't prove the story (that he chose to do so and could homer at will) anyways.

Cobb hitting 5 home runs in 2 games is, obviously, dumb luck. Is Dale Long a great home run hitter? Do you truly believe Cobb could homer at will and chose not too because singles are good too? Of course it's luck. I think Cobb was the greatest pre-Ruth player, but nobody can homer at will. He did not choose to hit singles instead of home runs; that makes no logical sense and assigns him a superhuman ability.

I agree with the other poster, singles ARE less important than home runs. I think this is pretty obvious. There is no situation, ever, in which a single is more valuable than a home run. It's a good story, reason tells us it is probably not true, and that if he did say it, Cobb obviously could not homer at will. If he could, if he did have this god-like ability, he sure didn't choose to use it often at all.

I thought your point was the relative value of singles vs. home runs. I didn't realize there was a difference in the result of a home run that goes over the fence and one that doesn't. Both clear the bases and count the same.

Cobb hit for power in the dead ball era; in his prime years, nobody was busting fences down. Nobody until the Babe.

Your point was that Cobb had home run power early in his career. I was pointing how misleading those numbers are.

Today, due to saber metrics and advanced stats, we know that home runs are far more valuable than singles. During Cobb’s time, that wasn’t so clear.

He had power to slam the ball deep enough into the gaps to be able to clear the bases and score himself. In his day, that was power. It's not like there were guys who were hitting 20 (or even 15) over the fence home runs in those days.

As I stated, relative to his time and peers, Cobb had power.

I think people understood that clearing the bases and scoring at minimum 1 run was better. I think people were intelligent enough to realize 4 bases is better than 1. Home runs were much harder to hit, but I do not see how we can reasonably doubt that people then knew 4 bases is better than 1.

Is this pissing contest going to end anytime soon? Asking for a friend.

Did runners stop at 1B instead of trying for 2B or 3B on balls hit a long way back then? No? Then they understood home runs were better.